Who is actually trustworthy in Web3
Personally, I feel something is off when in Web3 anyone can issue a claim about anyone, yet the trust behind that claim feels unclear. I keep wondering if I might be trusting the wrong signals. Everything is transparent on the surface, but trust itself feels unstructured.
I’ve been thinking about how projects audit themselves, DAOs issue their own badges and protocols verify their own users. It sounds logical, but personally I feel there is still no real trust hierarchy. I find it frustrating that it is not easy to tell which issuer is truly credible and which one is just speaking for itself.
Personally, I think Sign introduces a different perspective. They are not just recording attestations, but making issuers themselves observable through on-chain history. I find it genuinely interesting that the same schema can carry completely different weight depending on whether the issuer has a strong track record or is just a fresh wallet.
I’ve been thinking about schema hooks and revoke history, and personally I find this part quite compelling. Issuers are not done after issuing, because the way they revoke and use their authority leaves traces over time. It feels like every action contributes to building a real on-chain credibility profile.
Personally, I think Sign is a project worth paying attention to. The power of issuers is not assigned upfront, but earned through consistent behavior over time. I genuinely feel this is a strong step toward creating a real trust layer in Web3.
I keep thinking about where this could go next. Can this kind of credibility layer scale across the entire Web3 ecosystem?
What do you think about how trust should be structured going forward?